Let's Talk Politics

[Cyrax9]

Hitler NOT Like Saddam? That's incorrect if you ask me.

When Hitler came to power in Nazi Germany, he was "just a Dictator" he was a speaker, and elected by the German People. It was only after he began racial extermination that people REALIZED he was a threat. It was only after Japan gave us in the USA a Wake-Up calll that we were NOT immortal, and that we had become complacent!

Hitler moved into other coutnires and started mass-genocide the way he had already done in Germany, had the US not been attacked on 12/07/42 we'd all be under Opressive rule right now.

What happened after WW2? The USA, over time, became Complacent again. We iugnored MAJOR Terrorist threats and look what happened, Osama Bin Laden killed 1000's destroyed the Twin Towers, and tried to wipe out the Whitehouse!

Saddam is "Just a Dictator"?

A man who was 'Just a Dictator" was elected to Nazi germany, he became more than "Justa Dictator"< he becmae a fanatic, a Genocidal, racist fool who killed millions in many countires.

If we leave Saddam alone long enough, he'll have gased mre than the Kurds, he'll attack the USA again and other countires, and we could get into WW3 because of him!

He needs to be removed from power, BEFORE he can achive the type of Genocide that Hitler achived, he's not there yet, but he's definitley close, and if we leave him alone and treat him a s'Just a Dictator", we'll find ourselves on the verge of Mass-Genocide, just like we did in the 1940's.

What's that saying about ontlearning form history... Oh YEAH! THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FORM HISTORY, ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT, TIME AND AGAIN.

My Point: Remove Saddam from Power, before he LAUNCHES any Nukes and Chemical weapons he has, BEFORE he becomes as bad as, or worrse than hitler was in 1942.

We can NOT become complacent again, look where it got us, Pearl harbor, 9/11, it's because we were too complacent. We felt immortal, and now we're relaizng we AREN'T again and THAT is what hurts as and helps us at the same time.

If you want to avoid another World War, Saddam needs to go, North Korea needs to go afterwards or crumble the way Russia did.

Once we can get UN support, maybe FULL PROOF of Saddam's WMD's, and sedn it to the UN we'll ahve it.

The UK Supports us, but Russia and Germany don't, if we go in with only UK Support, maybe the Russians and Germans will follow, maybe they won't.

Keep in mind Russia has NO MONEY, ffer them a US Greenback and they'll join us, Germany may be harder to convice, but they MUST be in ful support of an attack on Iraq and it MUST be soon, or we WILL face problems of mass genocide.

Just becasue Saddam isn't broadcasting threats through the UN the way North Korea is, doesn't mean he's not a threat.

In fact, Bin Laden has stated he'd back Saddam and vice-versa, what if North Korea Joins them? Is THAT enough fo a threat to warrant an attack?

MY point is this, we may have to have the world hate us until 2004, becasue if we don't do anything about Saddam, who will?

There was a famous quote, I can't remerb how it goes, but it was based on the people who did nothing during WW2 until it was too late, Pika knows it by heart, he should post it.

What if Saddam gets a few people into the USA? What if he slips them something WORSE than Anthrax to send through the mail? What then? Do we sit around and say "We're working on it?", I think not!

I belive supportis needed, but we may only need the UK on our side to start, once we go in with ICBM's exploding in Saddam's face, France and germany will follow.

Do you think the average German Citizen is AGAINST war with Iraq? Of course not! They hate their leaders as much as we hate ours.

Bush has a policy in place "YOu gas us, we Nuke you!" I think that's a good idea, Saddam Gases us, we Nuke him, support r no support, it would show we're willing to win any war with him.

As for what to do with Saddam if we catch him? Don't kill him, exile him, and leave him out of the rest of the world.

If Saddam is left a s"Just a Dictaor' he will become more than such, he won't just gas Kurds, he'll gas US citizens, then UK Citizens then German and French and the rest of the world.

I beg you not to become complacent again, after 9/11 we should be goign after Saddam,e specially if we belive he may be harboring Bin Laden!

Gekko is right, we may have to look like fools before we can say "I told ya so!" to the rest fo the world.

As for not comparing Saddam to Hitler, look at how Hitler gradually started his mass-genocide campiegn, it started in germany, than it moved to the rest of the world, look at Sadddam's Campaign, he'll kill anyone who doesn't kiss is ass. Look at who he's killeed so far. It's the MINOIRTY in his country! Who did Hitler Kill first? The Jews, the Minority!

This is no differnt than WW2, the names have changed, that's it! Saddam is ggoing to be just as bad, if not worse, than Hilter if he gains more power, and we can't allow thatto hapen.

Who would want a textboook that reads "Just as with Pearl-Harbor showing the USA they needed to enter WW2 when they did, an attack from Saddam Hussein had shown the USA they needed to enter a third world war before peace could be achive."

I wouldn't want that in our textbooks or any others. Saddam may be "Just a dictator" right now, but leave him alone and he will be the worst enemy the USA and the rets of the world has faced.

North Korea is just being stupid right now, they'll get theirs if we go to war as well, and everybody knows that, but right now Saddam has been in power FAR too long, and he's going to only get worse until we say it's time to remove him, the USA may not be able to declare war, but this doesn't ahve to be offical, there is no OFFICAL war on Terrorism, there is aa "War on terrorism" in the sense that we are going to fight it with Bombs and guns, but not in the sense of a formal declaration.

Whatever we have to do to stop Saddam is what is nessecary, the Draft will help, and if we go to war with North Korea they'll probably follow Saddam.

Right now North Korea has only started to show defiance, but Saddam has done it for years, it's time ot remove him form pwoer, I'm with Gekko on this one, Saddam has to go before the world does

[gekko]

Originally posted by Cyrax9
Gekko is right, we may have to look like fools before we can say "I told ya so!" to the rest fo the world.

It's not that as much as we'll never get to say "I told you so." Anyone who denies that Sadaam is a threat is being completely ignorant, the¥ just don't want to do something about it. Ignorence is bliss. Stay out of things, and it'll all be fine.

The records are there. We know Sadaam's history, and we know he has weapons now. As Powell said, we have 15 countries with us, however, there are still those who oppose. There are some people like that, who don't think anything is worth war. Why can't a chemical warhead ever land on the anti-war protests?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he will fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

Now, the problem with attacking Iraq is tha we will never know what would have come. Those who understand Sadaam Hussein know that it's probably a good thing. But those Anti-Americans that oppose the war will always be there saying the war was for oil, and to finish Daddy's job. Idiots. Either way, I'd rather have to listen to some damn liberals bitch than see the destruction that would come from Sadaam.

Blix:

"The (Iraqi weapons report) document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Doesn't that bring happy thoughts.

[Professor S]

So citing that Blix has stated that weapons are unnaccounted for and Iraq has been extremely uncoorperative, exactly what evidence do we need to find?

People are looking at this wrong. Iraq had sanctions and terms of surrender placed ON THEM, which they have blatantly ignored for years. Its Iraq's responsibility to prove their innocence, not ours to prove their guilt. They are guilty and have been since they violated their terms of surrender, we just do not know exactly to what extent.

[gekko]

I like Oliver North's view of Germany and France. The Axis of Irrelevance

Oliver North: The Axis Of Irrelevance

January 23, 2003

Washington, D.C. - On January 28, the President will deliver the 2003 State of the Union address, the day after Hans Blix delivers the "Interim Report" of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to the Security Council. On Wednesday, Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair will sit down to map out "next steps" for dealing with Iraq. By Friday, every pundit with an inkwell and pollster with a telephone will be taking pot shots at the President.

Last year, the snipers in the "punditocracy" decided that the President's description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" during his State of the Union remarks gave them enough ammunition for a turkey shoot. In retrospect, "axis of evil" seems to be an understatement.

Since then, North Korea has admitted to an illegal nuclear weapons program, withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and demonstrated the efficacy of totalitarian rule by ordering a million starving people to march around in the cold waving signs vowing to "smash U.S. nuclear maniacs." Iran has stepped up its support for the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah terrorist organizations, promised more rockets for them to fire at Israel from Syrian-occupied Lebanon and announced plans to test long-range missiles. And Iraq's Saddam Hussein has delivered a false declaration about his weapons of mass destruction to the UN, openly defied and deceived UNMOVIC inspectors, hidden chemical warheads and refused access to Iraqi scientists working on these weapons.

So what's President Bush to do for an encore when he addresses Congress and the nation this year? How about a new axis - the Axis of Irrelevance? And the nominees are:

France. During the last century, hundreds of thousands of American boys died in two World Wars freeing Frenchmen from invaders. The French re-paid us in 1986 by refusing over-flight rights for attacking Libya's terrorist bases. And last week this pathetic, third-rate power, with a government that has allegedly taken cash from Saddam Hussein, repaid us again. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proclaimed in New York that France would not allow a UN vote for war against Iraq, "while we can still improve the path of cooperation." In words reminiscent of Marshal Petain, Villepin added that France would oppose "victory for the law of the strongest." President Bush wants a line in the sand. France wants sand in our eyes and a Maginot Line.

Germany. "Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions," German foreign minister Joschka Fischer declared last week. Now, the nation whose companies have done the most to help Iraq re-start their biological and chemical weapons programs wants to delay even the "interim" UNMOVIC report, and has invited "all interested parties" to Berlin on February 5 for talks. The Schroeder government, which once likened President Bush to Adolf Hitler, would also like to have a second inspection "assessment" on February 14 - Valentine's Day - after which we can expect a Rodney King-like press conference urging all involved parties to hold hands and ask "can't we all just get along?"

The European Union. The EU, which desperately wants the world to take it seriously, announced last week that member states categorically reject war on Iraq without the backing of the UN and insisted that weapons inspectors needed "more time" to do their job. EU President Costas Simitis of Greece said that a war in Iraq would "harm peace and stability in the Middle East." As if there was either.

The United Nations. In his September 12 address to the United Nations last year, President Bush challenged the UN to "serve the purpose of its founding," or face the prospect of irrelevance. Too late.

Last week, Libya, a state-sponsor of terror, whose civil liberties abuses are described by Human Rights Watch as "appalling," was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission - a 53-member body that also includes Sudan and Algeria. Only the United States, Canada and Guatemala opposed Libya's election. The seven European members of the commission abstained from casting ballots. After the vote, Libyan ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji chortled, "I don't think any country is free of human rights violations." That should soothe the grieving survivors of the 270 civilians who died in the Libyan-sponsored 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

And, as if to validate the UN place of honor in the Axis of Irrelevancy, Hans Blix described last week's discovery of a dozen undeclared and illicit, 122-millimeter chemical warheads hidden outside Baghdad as "not something that's so important." After four more warheads were "found," Mr. Blix (the word means "Blind" in Urdu) confidently reassured the world that, "The Iraqis claimed it was an oversight, and they are looking for more of them." Odds makers should take bets that O.J. Simpson will find the "real" killer before Saddam unearths the hidden components of his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

Judgment day for Iraq, and the United Nations, is fast approaching. Winston Churchill famously observed that British and French appeasers, on the eve of World War II, were presented with a choice between "war and dishonor." They opted for dishonor, Churchill explained, not realizing that the price for their cowardice would be war. Today we find ourselves at a similar historical precipice. To invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, albeit spoken in a different context, it is "a time for choosing."

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by gekko but taken from:
Oliver North: The Axis Of Irrelevance
Judgment day for Iraq, and the United Nations, is fast approaching. Winston Churchill famously observed that British and French appeasers, on the eve of World War II, were presented with a choice between "war and dishonor." They opted for dishonor, Churchill explained, not realizing that the price for their cowardice would be war. Today we find ourselves at a similar historical precipice. To invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, albeit spoken in a different context, it is "a time for choosing."

Wooh... thank you for posting that. Heh, I liked the comedic touch to the whole report. And, best of all, that last bit reaaally ties into this debate we've been having.

[gekko]

Someone grab me my gun, I got my hit list!

More stupid Anti-American bastards decided to publish their list of names going against President Bush. Stupid bastards are also supporting the draft dodgers Here's an idea, let's not kill Sadaam, let's kill these ****ers first

Just saw the poor dumb bastard running the show on the O'Reilly Factor. Runs again at 11PM EST on Fox News, fairly early on in the show. Argh... watch the show, then give these dumb ****s a piece of your mind

NION

[The Duggler]

Oliver North: The Axis Of Irrelevance
Judgment day for Iraq, and the United Nations, is fast approaching. Winston Churchill famously observed that British and French appeasers, on the eve of World War II, were presented with a choice between "war and dishonor." They opted for dishonor, Churchill explained, not realizing that the price for their cowardice would be war. Today we find ourselves at a similar historical precipice. To invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, albeit spoken in a different context, it is "a time for choosing."

Oh and it was a real act of honnor to bomb civilians twice with nukes after a military base was attacked.

[Joeiss]

Not only military places were bombed at Pearl Harbor. There were also some civilian targets that the Japanese hit. This is why you didn't see USA being charged with War Crimes, because once Japan did it to USA, it was an open playing field.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Ranzid
Oh and it was a real act of honnor to bomb civilians twice with nukes after a military base was attacked.

Shut up, go back to Canada you damn communist.

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Strangler... I have not once said in this post that I do not want America to go to war with Saddam. Saddam is a problem, I just do not think he is the biggest.

I wonder what happened to the War in Afghanistan. It suddenly dissapeared of our TV screens, infact it was never much on the news after the initial months.

There is more that meets the eye.

[gekko]

Hmm... let's see. The US defeaed the Taliban, and the al Qaeda members ran into Pakistan and are hiding. Now Afghanistan has a new government in place, and we're just around for mostly humanitarian crap. Not something to put in the news, just someone for the damn liberals to ramble on about.

You know, the war with Germany isn't on TV either. Oh ya, we helped establish new governments, and now the country can operate just fine on its own.

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by gekko
Hmm... let's see. The US defeaed the Taliban, and the al Qaeda members ran into Pakistan and are hiding. Now Afghanistan has a new government in place, and we're just around for mostly humanitarian crap. Not something to put in the news, just someone for the damn liberals to ramble on about.

You know, the war with Germany isn't on TV either. Oh ya, we helped establish new governments, and now the country can operate just fine on its own.

You forgot to mention one thing, Guerilla warfare, Afghans aren't that soft a group to allow Americans to roam about, just look at the history of the country. Read the news about what really is happening there, and not just the censored news you listen to.



Even in the Jang newspaper [Pakistani newspaper] which is normally censored to a large extent carried many reports of what is really happening in Afghanistan. But it's funny, these reports never tend to be reported out here.

[gekko]

Oh no, there's still armed people in Afghanistan. Please, cry me a river.

The US fought against the Taliban, the Afghan government. They took them out of power, and they established a new government. Afghanistan has guerillas, oh no, whoopie! Welcome to the middle east!

Pakistan covers Afghanistan news, I never would've guessed. I mean, they're only right next to each other, and terrorists must get their news. I mean, what would bin Laden do without his trusty Jang? He would feel so out of touch.

Guess what? News on Pakistan's economy and crime doesn't make it over here either. You know why? IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE REGION! But I guess it's asking too much to expect you, of all people, to understand that.

[Almansurah]

Originally posted by gekko
Oh no, there's still armed people in Afghanistan. Please, cry me a river.

The US fought against the Taliban, the Afghan government. They took them out of power, and they established a new government. Afghanistan has guerillas, oh no, whoopie! Welcome to the middle east!

Pakistan covers Afghanistan news, I never would've guessed. I mean, they're only right next to each other, and terrorists must get their news. I mean, what would bin Laden do without his trusty Jang? He would feel so out of touch.

Guess what? News on Pakistan's economy and crime doesn't make it over here either. You know why? IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE REGION! But I guess it's asking too much to expect you, of all people, to understand that.

Poor Soul, Another victim of American propaganda.

Please read up on the issues, and if you dont believe in them, up to you.

[The Duggler]

Originally posted by gekko
Shut up, go back to Canada you damn communist.

hehe

capitalism all the way huh?

North American lifestyle is certainly not an example of living for the rest of the planet. If the entire world population would be living like we are doing here in north america, it would take 5 planet earth to supply us. Yes we might be better than some others, but we are far from perfect, and we should try to fix our own problems before solving everybody else's problems.